Talk:Germany#rfc F855B95

I ask directly: who is in favor of inserting the standard for Wikipedia for the ranking of a country´s economy in the worldwide rankings and who supports more about Germany´s role in international politics in said world than a link to a European wide article. more information here is also wiki standard. I was asked to post this topic and so I ask for a direct discussion here. BauhausFan89 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

:both polls are about the intro text. BauhausFan89 (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::See #International organizations/Paneuropeism Moxy🍁 16:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

::For reference, I believe the edit being referred to in this post is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany&diff=prev&oldid=1273910432 this one]; please correct me if I have misunderstood.

::I don't think that edit is needed. There's really no such thing as "standard for Wikipedia"/"wiki standard" - the closest we have is WP:COUNTRYDETAIL, which would not support the proposed change. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::the listed example in WP is "A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world,"

:::Those refrences are all global, which is the full picture of a countries economy and should therefore be provided.

:::regarding international.

:::"Canada is part of multiple international organizations and forums." the link here leads to a sub Canada site, not to some random list of all European countries. the international role of Germany should be cleary specified in the intro text. I propose the add one I did with my last edit. BauhausFan89 (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The link is to International organisation membership of Canada. International organisation membership of Germany does not exist; if it did, we could link to that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::that is my point. it doesnt. so we need the line "founding member of EU, G7 and G20" to have some information specific to Germany. BauhausFan89 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Every state member of the G20 is a founding member, and the G7 isn't much less of an exaggeration. Further, these grouping are really not of EU-level significance. CMD (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::ok? then you proof my point of founding member of the EU at last. add that to 3rd biggest world economy and we round up the intro text nicely. BauhausFan89 (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::so I want to round up the intro text, so the lines are all the same lenght, want to add information, which is added in every major countries wiki intro and so Im asking why cant I add those points? BauhausFan89 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Having the lines all the same length is not something we need to strive for. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::but we need Germany specific information the intro text with due weight and third biggest world economy and founding member of the EU are of due weight. BauhausFan89 (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The lead is already Germany-specific. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I hope it is on a Germany wiki article. the link to international organisations is not Germany specific. the short list, Germany specific, which was there before, makes more sense. and the world ranking of the economy has due weight. BauhausFan89 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Sounds like you found an article to create..... a gap in coverage that you seem excited about. Moxy🍁 01:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::found something to link ;) BauhausFan89 (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::so given the weight of the world ranking of a country´s economy and the importance of the EU for European peace I would like to add "and the world´s third biggest by GDP" and "while being a founding member of the EU." BauhausFan89 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::The lead already includes the founding member of the EU claim and also largest GDP in Europe. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::fair. happy that its placed there. then I only want to add the world ranking in the lead, wiki standard and of given weight. BauhausFan89 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::As already noted, there's no such thing as a "wiki standard" that would require such a change. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::can we RE insert great power and third biggest economy by GDP. I ask for consensus with more than one other editor. BauhausFan89 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::Per above, this proposed insertion isn't needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::I stated before: inserting great power in the intro of the article allining with Wikipedia’s guidelines for lead sections (WP:LEAD), the introduction should summarize the most important points of the article, including notable geopolitical status. Due weight: Germany is widely recognized as a great power in international relations, due to its economic strength, political influence, and leadership within the European Union. The term reflects the scholarly and international consensus found in reliable sources and Inserting world´s 3rd biggest due to Wiki´s guideline on lead sections (WP:LEAD), key facts that define a country’s global status—such as its economic ranking—should be summarized early in the article. Due weight and relevance: Germany’s position as the third-largest economy in the world by nominal GDP (as recognized by the IMF and World Bank) is a major aspect of its international importance. Including this fact gives appropriate weight to a defining characteristic, in line with WP:DUE. so can I get the input of others? BauhausFan89 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::I want to make 2 little changes to the existing paragraph. "Germany is a developed country with a strong economy; it has the largest economy in Europe and the third-largest worldwide by nominal GDP. As a major force in several industrial, scientific and technological sectors, it is both the world's third-largest exporter and importer. It offers social security, a universal health care system, and tuition-free university education. As a great power Germany is part of multiple international organisations and forums, including the United Nations, the European Union, the G7, the G20, and NATO. It also has the third-highest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites, with 54 in total, of which 51 are cultural." following my citation of wiki rules arguing for the changes: WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View): Wikipedia allows descriptive terms like “great power” if they are supported by reliable sources and reflect how the subject is described in scholarly or widely accepted discourse. Germany is commonly referred to as a great power in international relations literature and major encyclopedic or academic sources. "great power":

::::::::::::::::::::::WP:V (Verifiability): The term "great power" is verifiable in reliable secondary sources, such as academic articles, international relations publications, and official documents (e.g., EU or UN references). For example, Britannica and various scholarly journals describe Germany as a great power.

::::::::::::::::::::::WP:DUE (Due Weight): The inclusion gives due weight to Germany's status in global affairs. It is not an exceptional claim and is proportionate to the topic’s treatment in reliable literature.

::::::::::::::::::::::"world´s third largest by GDP": P:RS (Reliable Sources): Germany's status as Europe’s largest economy and the world’s third-largest by nominal GDP is regularly reported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and other authoritative economic bodies—qualifying under Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.

::::::::::::::::::::::WP:PRECISE (Precision): Wikipedia values precision and clarity. The original phrase was ambiguous; it could mislead readers to think Germany was third in Europe, rather than worldwide. The revision removes this ambiguity by precisely stating both rankings.

::::::::::::::::::::::WP:LEAD and WP:MOS: Wikipedia’s Manual of Style encourages concise and factually rich summaries. The new phrasing enhances clarity and conveys the most relevant economic information in a balanced way.

::::::::::::::::::::::so how many support those changes? BauhausFan89 (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Can't we find a more illustrative image than "Windmills behind Lisberg Castle"? Seems rather insignificant to me. If you have any suggestions for a better image that would fit in the section, it'd be appreciated. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Windmills Baltic 1.jpg? German wind energy is the main source of renewable energy for the country and the sea parks play a major role in it. BauhausFan89 (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Nikkimaria is removing the image place all together without any talk disscusion and keeps removing it over wrong lay out issue claims even after the mild one of the NEW image in the image place was fixed. I will insert the old image there and ask for a disscusion here if the new one can be inserted. BauhausFan89 (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Both images displace the following content and cause unnecessary whitespace in subsequent sections. The susection isn't large enough to support two images. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::that is not true. Neuschwanenstein would not move an inch if you remove a image in the current layout. and with my modification to the ICE subtext you can insert the North Sea image too. can I get the input of others? BauhausFan89 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I would like to the include the north sea image with the line "windmills in the German North sea". same layout like now with a better image, showing the wide spread infrastructure in Germany´s energy transition. BauhausFan89 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The location currently occupied by an image (previously Lisberg Castle) should contain an image. a photo of North Sea wind turbines representing Germany’s Energiewende. MOS:IMAGES encourages the use of images when they “illustrate the material” and improve understanding. due weight (WP:DUE) Due to one line of subtext the image fully complies with WP:ACCESSIBILITY. BauhausFan89 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::reinserting the 2nd image due to the following points.

:::::::Visual relevance and educational purpose: Per WP:IMAGEUSE, images should "contribute meaningfully to the article" and "illustrate key points." One image may illustrate Germany’s dense transport infrastructure (e.g., Autobahn or ICE train), while another can visually represent the Energiewende or renewable energy leadership. Both are core themes of this section and complement the extensive text.

:::::::Balance and undue weight: Adding two relevant images does not violate WP:UNDUE because the section covers two substantial, distinct yet nationally significant topics: transportation and energy. Giving them equal visual representation helps readers distinguish the subtopics.

:::::::Avoiding unnecessary removal: Per WP:PRESERVE, if the images are relevant, properly licensed, and of good quality, they should be retained unless a policy-based reason demands removal.

:::::::please seek consenus. BauhausFan89 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Why are we adding a picture of a bridge in the religion section? Moxy🍁 23:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Okay I see it's trying to display a church can we find a better image as outlined at MOS:PERTINENCE. Moxy🍁 23:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria I think the fact that Germany is the world's largest exporter of cars by value is highly notable and should be kept. The featured Japan article also includes Japan's car export rank. Maxeto0910 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::Because Germany produces fewer cars than Japan and yet exports more by value, clearly showing that German cars are high in demand on the global market. If it is justified to include the ranking of car exports in the Japan article, it is even more so here. Maxeto0910 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Good, thank you. Maxeto0910 (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bundesrepublik&redirect=no Bundesrepublik] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 24#Bundesrepublik}} until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 15:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the image of Angela Merkel at the 2013 Electromobility Summit with the following:

File:Mercedes-Benz W223 IMG 6663.jpg. By value, Germany was the world's largest exporter of cars in 2023.]]

I think this image better illustrates Germany's strong automotive industry for which the country is widely known for and fits better with a section about the general state of the German economy, as the Merkel image focuses too much on environmental aspects, which are only dealt with one subsection later and are not the topic here. For reference: the featured Japan article also has an image of an iconic Japanese car model in its economy section. Maxeto0910 (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think the present version is preferable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Why? Maxeto0910 (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::A car is not illustrative of a country for most readers; I'd argue for removing the Japan example on the same basis. If you showed the average reader the two images side by side, they wouldn't be able to tell which is supposed to be in which country article. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think an iconic car model from a major brand can indeed be illustrative of a country's economy, which the section is about. In contrast, I think highlighting Germany's goal that all new cars sold in Germany must be zero-emission vehicles by 2035 is even less illustrative and noteworthy for the country, as most developed countries have similar goals. The argument that most readers probably won't be able to tell if one image without its caption is about Germany or another (European) country applies to most images in this article. Maxeto0910 (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::: I favour person images over car of object images. This is one car of one brand, partly build in Germany, maybe a kind of icon but not suited to illustrate the country article. Nillurcheier (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::A photo of a car doesn't contribute to the understanding of the typical reader, though. Is there an alternative image that you think would do so? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::"[...] doesn't contribute to the understanding of the typical reader [...]"

::::::Well, neither does a photo of a city's skyline, a train, or a castle, I think. For most images in country articles, the meaningful messages are conveyed by the caption, and the images are often just examples for better illustration. Maxeto0910 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree completely! Many country articles have too many images that don't really help readers. But I don't think that's a reason to add more. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Sure, but I'm not arguing for adding a new image but for replacing an existing image with another one which I think is better. Maxeto0910 (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't agree that it is, but let's see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Does Germany just not do polls and censuses about these? 92.53.60.8 (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:They do not, actually. Can you guess why? Remsense ‥ 论 09:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we should remove the images from Template:Largest cities of Germany as we do with all our FA and GA articles about countries due to lack of accessibility because they're so small and teeny. As a featured content article it should follow our basic manual style and not sandwich the text simply to add images that aren't visible at 120px that is 130% smaller then we advices .... this is normally done during the review but I guess someone likes them. Moxy🍁 22:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds like a good idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Many city-related navigation templates (e.g., for France, Italy, or the U.S.) include small thumbnails. Removing them only from this one might create inconsistency unless there's a broader consensus to update similar templates as well. BauhausFan89 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::All our FA and GA articles don't have non-accessible images so that is the norm for articles that have gone under community review. On a side note you've reverted a image six times now. Please be aware that a slow editwar can get you blocked. Moxy🍁 00:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Besides the fact that the images are perfectly accessible from any normal screen and that they can also be enchanced on a phone you have WP:ACCESSIBILITY stating images should be made accessible where possible, especially in articles but that decorative images in templates or infoboxes are explicitly allowed, and often don't require alt text if they serve a primarily visual function (e.g. cityscape icons, flags). This aligns with the W3C accessibility standards. According to MOS:ICON, icons can enhance user experience if used sparingly and with clear meaning. For templates like "Largest cities in Germany", a small, recognizable image (such as a cityscape) can help readers quickly identify the context. It enhances usability without significantly impacting accessibility if implemented thoughtfully (e.g., marked as decorative with alt=""). and the reverting was after non agreed upon removal of an image, so if anything the removers should think about stoping their edit war. BauhausFan89 (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:These city templates are a regular issue. A population density map would be much better. CMD (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Omg..... agree completely. Moxy🍁 03:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Germany|answered=yes}}

Add the water border with Schweden and England to the top of the page I have a source

https://www.marineregions.org/eezdetails.php?mrgid=5669

the red areas touch Schweden and England so border Kommandant-Brot (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done for now}}: I don't think it is common to list two countries as bordering each other just because their exclusive economic zones touch. Do you have any sources to establish this as a valid definition of border? meamemg (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Although it's a controversial and disputed topic legally I believe the Bundestag and Bundesrat are not one single parliament but two separate unicameral institutions, people may still fairly argue this is defacto bicameralism but I feel the infobox should include this nuance and avoid use of the terms lower and upper house. LeTommyWiseau2000 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Do you have sourcing supporting your interpretation? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the following statement: "Its PPP-adjusted GDP per capita amounts to 121% of the EU27 average." (Now updated to "Its PPP-adjusted GDP per capita amounted to 126% of the EU27 average in 2015.")

The archived source (clicking on the non-archived link results in a 404 error) states that the data is from late 2014, so this figure is over a decade old at this point. I therefore suggest either finding a more recent figure or removing the sentence entirely. Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:Granted, the most recent archived version of the website accessible on the webarchive is from 2020, where it says that the data is from 2019. However, even there it only shows the figure until 2015, which is probably still too outdated to be considered meaningful. Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::I now updated the sentence to say "Its PPP-adjusted GDP per capita amounted to 126% of the EU27 average in 2015."

Perhaps we can keep the information on the grounds that it is better than nothing. I'd still encourage others to find a more recent figure though. Maxeto0910 (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The sentence has been updated, so this thread can be archived now. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)